E620 RAW vs JPG

[ldmelsa]

Just imagine if we spent as much time trying to get the lighting right, instead of discussing the insignificant deferences between two formats, from the same digital camera. The three formats, print film, slide film and digital have obvious deferences. Even at that, they can be used to achieve the same results. Raw vs Jpg? Now we're talking sub-formats, so to speak. A little detail Nazi like, don't you guys agree? Composition, timing, lighting. That's the key!

 

[bwana]

Just imagine if we spent as much time trying to get the lighting right, instead of discussing the insignificant deferences between two formats, from the same digital camera. The three formats, print film, slide film and digital have obvious deferences. Even at that, they can be used to achieve the same results. Raw vs Jpg? Now we're talking sub-formats, so to speak. A little detail Nazi like, don't you guys agree? Composition, timing, lighting. That's the key!

I dont think anyone took a break from shooting to discus the differences.

Composition, lighting, timing, and - as just as important as ever - post. Getting the best image possible doesn't really seem that outlandish to me.

BTW - print and slide are a similar "sub-format"

 

[ponder]

Pixel peepers!

 

[BigAl-sa]

Unfortunately, dcraw, the backend for most freeware RAW converters, doesn't support the E620 yet. I'm downloading your pic, and will check whether RAW Therapee recognises it.

 

[BigAl-sa]

Well, RAW Therapee beta 4 (the one I have on my machine) can read the file, but it's been so long since I used RT, I can't remember all the tricks. Will play around a bit and see what I can come up with. I only downloaded the NoFlash.orf pic, and that seems to be about 2-stops underexposed.

 

[koffiejunkie]

has dcraw improved much with the newer files? I remember a while back you posted some images showing it was rather poor with the 40D (?) files.

 

[BigAl-sa]

has dcraw improved much with the newer files? I remember a while back you posted some images showing it was rather poor with the 40D (?) files.

I'm using the same dcraw that I used then. It's the only software I have (or rather backend) which can open .orf files. What is quite interesting is that Gimp 2.6.6, which uses UFraw 0.15 (which also uses dcraw as a backend), has the image totally underexposed.

 

[bwana]

I'm using the same dcraw that I used then. It's the only software I have (or rather backend) which can open .orf files. What is quite interesting is that Gimp 2.6.6, which uses UFraw 0.15 (which also uses dcraw as a backend), has the image totally underexposed.

Aperture auto corrected the exposure by about a stop.